If a 5yr od pointed a gun at you

[four24ever]

i would try to dodge and end up getting shot. rather get shot than shoot.

but honestly, in the heat of the moment, i would probably shoot. so idk?

 

[boondockbabe]

hey BigApple,
Now that actually sound like a pretty logical plan. Avoid if possible, Attack if nessary. You sound like you made a plan for that situation. I have plans for everything. Good plan.

 

[Solitaire U.]

I'm not going to wait for him to kill me and then use his new found experience to kill my friends or several innocent bystanders. The buck stops here. He is as much of a combatant as those who trained him.

Are you referring to the slain fathers or invasion forces that kill them? And stop pissing into the wind about innocent bystanders...when children are forced to take up arms those no longer exist.

I pray then...

Save it. The last place you will find me is in a foreign land kicking down doors in search of prepubescent 'insurgents' cowering in their own piss with their dead daddy's Kalashnikov.

Cease with your vague romanticisms and offer up some real-life circumstances whereby children can be killed with honorable justification. Did the op not inquire thus?

 

[The Gopher]

Symbolic? Dude this shit really happens. I can't tell you how many times I have heard this story. You want to change it to a woman in a burka? Does it matter? Would you pull the trigger to save yourself or take the moral highroad? This is what my friends ask me when they are having problems dealing. " Do you think it's ok to kill children to save yourself ?"
Since we are all thinkers I told them I would ask you guys what you thought. I personally feel that Whatever you have to do to survie and come home to your family is acceptable. I have been in simalar(sp) situations and I have always shot back- reguardless of who it was. I MUST survive. I was not referring to any 12 yr old suicide-of any kind.
This is not about the psychology of the person threatening your life, This is the psychology of the person facing the decision of wether or not to pull the trigger.
I understand that there are people who think killing under ANY circumstances is sick. I have just not had the luxury of an easy life. I am jaded and as so I respond differently. I am glad to know that there are plenty of folks out there that would make the Intelligent decision of saving themselves. I look foreward to the many perceptions to come. and I know my friends will feel better knowing that a bunch of really smart people would do the same as they did. Thank you all for your input.

To the people who think it is wrong, I would like to thank you for your insight. I will keep it in mind when speaking with my friends on such matters. I would not undertand the other side of this at all if it were not for you. I really appreciate your insight.

Well it is the smart/intelligent thing to do with surviving in mind, and I have no problem with the idea of killing people in war. (or even anywhere else if required in self defense) and if you can come up with a solution to the guilt (not saying if you are guilty if you shoot but your mind will trick you into thinking it was the wrong way to go. [which is probably why you wrote this "I know my friends will feel better knowing that a bunch of really smart people would do the same as they did."] {because of the psychological need for reaffirming})

However I went of track there.... then it is probably the right thing to do. If you don't value your own life or don't care if you die then why shoot.

 

[Wizardry]

I read an article the other day about this. A mother walked into her bedroom and allegedly got shot by her 4-6 (forgot age, was young kid) in the head.

Things like this are impossible to answer fully because its all so situational. I have people to live for though, I will protect my self first and do whatever is required to carry out that function unless I find myself in some situation where I have to be sacrificial. This is not one of those situations.

 

[Particle]

If your life is at immediate risk, there isn't any time for political correctness. It doesn't matter if the adversary is male, female, old, young, human, robot, or gorilla. Shoot he/she/it if you must. The philosophical derivatives of what they're doing and why don't really matter in that moment. All that matter is if you value your life more than the enemy's and if you have the means to preserve your own if so no matter if it costs the adversary's life. It's a situation they've presented to you, at least in this hypothetical.

Some of you seem to have missed that part of the set up of this hypothetical is that the child is going to shoot you and that you're presented with the decision of what to do a moment before that happens (you have the opportunity to shoot first, presumably also with a lethal weapon of some sort though it isn't defined). Waxing on about if the child is really going to shoot or not is to ignore the situation you've been presented with and instead substitute it with an alternate reality you seem to like better, namely one in which you're not forced into making the decision asked of you in the OP and can instead take time to play mind games or do a somersault to safety.

 

[Gather_Wanderer]

If your life is at immediate risk, there isn't any time for political correctness. It doesn't matter if the adversary is male, female, old, young, human, robot, or gorilla. Shoot he/she/it if you must. The philosophical derivatives of what they're doing and why don't really matter in that moment. All that matter is if you value your life more than the enemy's and if you have the means to preserve your own if so no matter if it costs the adversary's life. It's a situation they've presented to you, at least in this hypothetical.

Some of you seem to have missed that part of the set up of this hypothetical is that the child is going to shoot you and that you're presented with the decision of what to do a moment before that happens (you have the opportunity to shoot first, presumably also with a lethal weapon of some sort though it isn't defined). Waxing on about if the child is really going to shoot or not is to ignore the situation you've been presented with and instead substitute it with an alternate reality you seem to like better, namely one in which you're not forced into making the decision asked of you in the OP and can instead take time to play mind games or do a somersault to safety.

Well, I'm not sure the OP was crystal clear on this. In a warzone, most have agreed that they would pop one in between the kids eyes if held at gunpoint, but under "normal" civilian type circumstances, it could easily be something as simple as a child grabbing hold of a gun or something and not really knowing the power they had in their hand (though most non-police people wouldn't casually have access to a gun, so them being in a shoot-or-die kind of situation would seem to take a lot of unlikely unraveling of events.)

Let me re-pose the question this way: If you were a police officer coming onto the scene of a child having a gun in hand--maybe he/she already murdered someone, maybe he/she didn't--would you automatically shoot? This would be a domestic issue, far away from the battlefield. I don't think one would so easily pull the trigger, then. In fact, I don't think really anyone one would. The kid would likely be scared as hell if he/she actually had managed to hurt someone with it.
I don't think I could kill any untrained child.

 

[Particle]

No, I wouldn't automatically shoot the child in your new hypothetical. It's different than the one presented in the OP, however. The first one tells you straight up he's about to shoot you. The second one doesn't define that event as inevitable. Since it's not in the second one, I'd try something else first and play it by ear according to details gained when actually in that situation.

I do maintain that the child knowing what he is doing doesn't matter. If he's presenting a danger, that danger has to be dealt with on its own merits regardless of it the person causing that danger understands what they are doing. If they point at you and start to squeeze the trigger, the why no longer matters. You shoot back.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

This scenario is pointless to discuss. All we can hypothesize and conclude is everyone's moral pretense.

 

[Gather_Wanderer]

No, I wouldn't automatically shoot the child in your new hypothetical. It's different than the one presented in the OP, however. The first one tells you straight up he's about to shoot you. The second one doesn't define that event as inevitable. Since it's not in the second one, I'd try something else first and play it by ear according to details gained when actually in that situation.

I do maintain that the child knowing what he is doing doesn't matter. If he's presenting a danger, that danger has to be dealt with on its own merits regardless of it the person causing that danger understands what they are doing. If they point at you and start to squeeze the trigger, the why no longer matters. You shoot back.

Though information was given about a someone having to do this in a warzone, it technically wasn't in the original question and I suppose that's how I was looking at it. I did previously say that in a warzone, almost everyone here would probably shoot first...that's what's being said, anyway.

I can't be totally sure what I would do, though I suspect everyone's train of thought would be slightly different after having been trained as a solider, and would be more likely to kill.

 

[Roboman]

Lacking data, missing factors. Unavailable to give you an accurate answer. #NerdSmiley# (Where's the nerdy smiley? )

If it's war, and if this kid is a soldier then you are doing a mistake underestimating him. He is trained to kill you. Reasoning won't work. So it's either trick him somehow or last resort, shoot.

If it's a normal 5 yo, then you would attempt to lure the weapon back to safe hands.

Problem solved.

 

[BigApplePi]

Some of you seem to have missed that part of the set up of this hypothetical is that the child is going to shoot you and that you're presented with the decision of what to do a moment before that happens (you have the opportunity to shoot first, presumably also with a lethal weapon of some sort though it isn't defined). Waxing on about if the child is really going to shoot or not is to ignore the situation you've been presented with and instead substitute it with an alternate reality you seem to like better, namely one in which you're not forced into making the decision asked of you in the OP and can instead take time to play mind games or do a somersault to safety.

I think you are right about the hypothetical, but still I have to ask, "In whose mind do we KNOW the child is going to shoot?" That is why we have to be sensitive to the situation. We look at the child and see how he is holding the gun, for example. Is it pointed directly at you and has he just moved into position? Or has he been pointing at you for a while so we realize he is making a decision? If we don't care to take ANY chances, we shoot first, but that is not exactly real.

By presenting answers that vary the hypothetical, the scenario is made interesting, not just for the scenario's sake, but for the answering poster. Still you are right. After some answers, we should go back to home base: the original hypothesis.

Why am I so long winded about this? Maybe by seeing too many movies where I wonder about similar situations, lol. How would the director handle it?

 

[Jesse]

If it was a domestic I would never shoot. Simple as that.

 

[Solitaire U.]

I did previously say that in a warzone, almost everyone here would probably shoot first...that's what's being said, anyway

I think what's being said is that everyone in a war zone could be assumed to shoot on sight. That isn't the same as everyone here saying they would willingly enter a war zone...

 

[A22]

again

If your old enough to aim a gun at someone, you are old enough for the consequence.

 

[Jesse]

In light of that picture I will amend to old enough to understand consequences.

 

[Gather_Wanderer]

I think what's being said is that everyone in a war zone could be assumed to shoot on sight. That isn't the same as everyone here saying they would willingly enter a war zone...

Whether or not people would willingly enter the warzone is irrelevent to this scenario. All that is clearly asked is what we would do under the given circumstances of being held at gunpoint by a 5 yr old (which I sort of went around with my own questioning). I don't think I said the former.

*Checks previous post to avoid confusing self*

No, I didn't.

 

[Legion]

I would probably laugh my butt off for several minutes. I am odd like that. If the kid still hasn't shot me, I would forcibly take the gun from him, kidnap him, and raise him to the best of my ability. Why? Cause it takes guts to try to kill someone. With my help he could probably become an unstopable killing machine. Imagine someone trained in every art of warfare and assassination.

If he turned out to be a lost cause, I could always dump him at an orphanage. Either way his life would almost certainly turn out better than if he would have stayed where he was before I intervened.

And if I didn't think I could get the gun away from him, I would just kill him. I wouldn't feel regret, but I would mourn the wasted potential.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

Can I put the picture in my signature?

As has been said before by other people, I would never shoot the child outside of a wartime situation.

It's just bad taste...

 

[Solitaire U.]

.

You want the 99chan pix of the little dead Iraqi kids too?

 

[Dr. Freeman]

Nah, my signature only has room for one.

Thanks for the offer though!

 

[EditorOne]

Interestingly enough, a five-year-old pointing a gun at Gary Sinise, in the middle of some kind of violence with guns pulled everywhere, is the theme of Friday (May 13) night's CSI: NY, for those who care to watch. I saw it on a trailer today. Boondockbabe, are you prescient, a screenwriter for the show or what?

 

[boondockbabe]

Interestingly enough, a five-year-old pointing a gun at Gary Sinise, in the middle of some kind of violence with guns pulled everywhere, is the theme of Friday (May 13) night's CSI: NY, for those who care to watch. I saw it on a trailer today. Boondockbabe, are you prescient, a screenwriter for the show or what?

I wish. Screenwriter would be a pretty cool job.Mabye I should give them a call and tell them I want a cut? I'll have to rember to watch that tonight.
I have always wondered how they do that. Like on Law and Order. You know they filmed the show months before but somehow it seems they ripped it from the headlines. I mean they can't possibly be filming the episodes that fast. The conspirist in me says they have somekind of inside track. The realist in me says I'm being crazy. Either way it is a strange occurance ( I don't really believe in coincedence).

Being set in TV land, I bet Gary Sinise finds a way to disarm the child, and save the day with no loss of life. I love how tv is so clean. It's a shame real life can't be that way. I guess if it was nobody would read books or watch tv. I personally perfer books to tv, but I am a book addict.

 

[Solitaire U.]

CSI...how bourgeois. I'd rather hear about all the real life kids the op and friends have killed.

 

[Melllvar]

You want the 99chan pix of the little dead Iraqi kids too?

I'll take it. If we had more of that stuff we might not have as many people gung-ho for going to war.

 

[Solitaire U.]

Pretty sure I'd get banned for posting those...splattered brains and such...but you can have fun searching for it here:

http://99chan.org/

 

[teleforce]

i'm gonna arbitrarily assume the kid doesn't have any legs. i dodge, i'm safe.

 

[zigzag]

I'd sign him to a movie deal, ASAP!
http://youtu.be/-ggyypk37JI

 

[Chimera]

i'm gonna arbitrarily assume the kid doesn't have any legs. i dodge, i'm safe.

Ooh, I like this one.
I'm gonna change his firearm to a water pistol. Or one of those
cork gun toys I had when I was little. Those things were cool.

In all seriousness though, I'd probably shoot, miss, and die. My entire body would
be shaking from anxiety and anticipated guilt, and I'm sure I'd be a
lousy shot anyway, considering I've never fired a real gun before.
If we're going with realistics of the here-and-now.
​

 

[Hadoblado]

I would not shoot. I would do everything in my power to gtfo, but I don't have that much worth living for that would justify me killing a kid. I don't think it's necessarily immoral to shoot, I just know that I would not. If I had a family to get back to things might be different, ask me then.

 

[BigApplePi]

No I wouldn't shoot. I'd say, "Guess what? It's your birthday! Join me for a piece of cake. We can play target practice afterward."

 

[Vecho]

I wouldn't hesitate. I don't care if it is a 5yr old or God. Both be dead.

 

[Causeless]

That police officer should have been FARRRR more concerned towards the feeling of something fucking with his gun holster.